A simplified view of second-tier diplomacy («Track II») prevails in society, and even among the ruling elites of Ukraine and Russia. To many, it appears to be nothing more than a closed room where influential figures quietly gather to «surreptitiously carve up a map» or divide spheres of influence.
However, this is a profound misconception. Genuine «Track II» diplomacy is an entirely different instrument. It is not an arena for formal haggling («whether we slice off this piece of Donbas or not»). It is a mechanism for generating fundamentally new ideas when official policy («Track I») hits a dead end, and society and the media are consumed by «sound and fury,» mutual accusations, and hatred.
To understand how a peace process for Ukraine and Russia could function today, one must analyse the key conditions under which Track II can yield results at all.
1. The Human Factor: Access to the Ear of Top Leaders
Track II is, first and foremost, about specific individuals. These individuals must possess either direct or indirect access to the highest echelons of power.
Why is this critical? If participants lack a pipeline to decision-makers, they will be unable to convey the concepts they develop in an unadulterated form. Within modern political systems—whether surrounding Putin, Zelensky, or in the United States—there exists a massive filter of «information bubbles.» Top leaders are frequently not briefed on the real picture of the world.
«Those in Moscow and Kyiv who knew the real state of affairs—and it was known in both 2016 and 2017—either deliberately distorted the information or failed to convey it to Putin. This led to war. Participants in ‘Track II’ must command enough weight and authority to present the developed concept directly to the top in the correct manner.»
2. Atmosphere: Open Minds and Rebuilding Trust
The chief enemy of negotiations is dogmatic thinking. One cannot sit down at the table with prefabricated ultimatums or attempts to draw borders using old templates. What is required is a creative, thoroughly non-standard approach. Yet for such an approach to emerge, one must pass through the first and most arduous phase: building mutual trust.
A classic historical example of Track II diplomacy in action is the dismantling of the apartheid system in South Africa (RSA).
Historical Precedent: The Lesson of South Africa
In the late 20th century, experts and politicians uniformly predicted an inevitable, bloody bloodbath in South Africa. Two distinct layers of hatred existed simultaneously:
- Between the white and Black populations: Almost all wealth and property were concentrated in the hands of the white minority, while the Black majority demanded justice.
- Among Black tribes themselves: Inter-ethnic conflicts and animosities were at times even fiercer than the confrontation with the white population.
Official politicians («Track I») and the international community were incapable of finding a solution. An alternative idea was born: gather the brightest minds from each conflicting side, remove them far from external pressure (for instance, to an isolated hotel in England or the mountains of Switzerland), and simply let them live together for a couple of weeks.
For the first two weeks, they refrained from discussing politics entirely. They ate breakfast and lunch together, took walks, and talked. The goal of that initial gathering was not to reach a deal, but to stop viewing one another as enemies and to establish personal trust.
Only by the third or fourth iteration, once human trust had taken root, were they able to collaboratively generate a constructive idea. It was in this informal setting that an unconventional thought arose: to make Nelson Mandela—who was in prison at the time and not considered a political actor by the official government—the key figure in the transition of power. As a result, South Africa navigated a regime change without millions of casualties.
3. «They Want to Fight Because There Is No Idea»
Today, it is frequently said: «In the case of Russia and Ukraine, it feels as though no one is trying to find a solution; everyone just wants to fight.»
However, this is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. The parties continue to wage war not because they enjoy the process, but because they see no alternative reality and possess no vision for the future. When an individual or a state sees no way out and no clear alternative, they act out of inertia within the confines of the existing stalemate.
History demonstrates that grand systems often collapse or stall precisely when their foundational idea ceases to function and no replacement is forged:
Marxism and Lenin: Marx, Lenin, and the Comintern believed in an imminent world revolution. When the Red Army’s offensive into Poland, Germany, and France failed after the defeat at Warsaw in 1921, it became clear that world revolution would not materialize. They had to improvise the preservation of communist power in a single country—Russia—a move that fundamentally contradicted their original theory.
- The USSR: The Soviet system ultimately rotted from within after falling under the control of state and party bureaucracies, which created a «shadow criminal state» and a system of «chronic goods shortages.» The party bureaucracy lost its original sense of direction and the revolutionary spirit of Marxism, devoting itself instead to serving its own clan interests.
(For more details, see Valery Morozov’s books: «Entering the Kremlin,» «The Secret History of Communism in Russia,» and «The Kremlin Streltsy (The Kremlin Security Service)» available in Russian and English at ValeryMorozov.com, Lulu, and Amazon KDP)
4. The Core Issue Today: A Rotten System and Clan Politics
The protracted conflict today is fed by an internal, systemic illness shared by both countries. The architecture of state governance in both Russia and Ukraine historically stems from the same matrix:
- Power is deeply intertwined with corrupt clans and factions.
- The political system is built around the survival of individual institutions (including intelligence services) that wage war not only externally, but also internally against one another for administrative and financial resources.
- The traditional model of «political parties» is dead. Parties have evolved from ideological movements into combat units, then into bureaucratic structures, and ultimately into corrupt factions.
This is precisely why simple calls to «just sign a peace deal» do not work. A peace movement and its underlying ideology cannot consist of abstract appeals to goodwill.
A true peace movement is a proposal for a new architecture of statehood.
Conclusion: What Is the Task Ahead for Track II?
Real «Track II» diplomacy for Ukraine and Russia is not an attempt to guess how Putin or Zelensky will carve up territories.
It is an effort to assemble people with open minds—unfettered by the pressures of current politics and security establishments—to formulate a concept for transforming the state systems themselves.
A way out of this military tailspin is possible only when a new model for the post-Soviet space is introduced:
- Efficient and technologically advanced.
- Free from clan corruption and the omnipotence of the intelligence services.
- Clear and capable of offering a vision of a secure future for both society and global players.
Human trust among intellectuals on both sides must be established first. From that trust, the Idea is born. Only then can this idea be handed over to politicians. Until that path is walked, the cart will remain in front of the horse, and the war will continue for a lack of an alternative.
